I thought I’d post an update on my blog entry where the U.S. State of Kentucky got a court order to seize domain names from their registrants without due process. Or at least tried to seize.

Although various registrars were involved in the Kentucky dispute, it featured four big names. One of them caved in, another is trying to show a middle ground, while two so far appear to fight it.

Michael Berkens of TheDomains first reported that domain registrar eNom transferred the domain names to Kentucky. From his first post on the subject a day before that, eNom moved them almost “immediately” after receiving the court order.

It was initially blogged that Go Daddy also transferred the domain names in the court order’s list. Subsequent posts said Go Daddy issued some kind of certificate for the domain names, yet they haven’t transferred the domain names to the Kentucky state.

Andrew Allenman of DomainNameWire finally got the official word from Go Daddy on this issue:

http://domainnamewire.com/2008/10/09/official-godaddy-statement-on-kentucky-domains-case/

We did not give the names to the Commonwealth of Kentucky, as stated in the order, as the registrant had not had a proper chance to be heard on these issues.

I checked one of the domain names in the list that’s registered with Go Daddy, bet21.com. Sure enough, it’s still listed with its Bangkok-based registrant:

http://www.iwhois.com/index.php?domain=bet21&tld=com&lookup=Lookup&clean=1

BlastOff LTD
99/16 Moo 20 Perfect Place
Ramhamhaeng 164
Minburi, Bangkok 10510
Thailand

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: BET21.COM
Created on: 17-Jun-03
Expires on: 17-Jun-17
Last Updated on: 10-Jun-08

However, there was one part in Go Daddy’s official response that rather bugged me:

We provided the court a registrar certificate giving jurisdiction to the court. Meaning whatever the end result of this litigation, we will implement the court’s order.

Now, I’d say it’s good of Go Daddy to honor whatever court order will be issued after this case is concluded. I probably misunderstood something, but that reply also means Go Daddy agrees with the court to have those cases resolved in Kentucky itself.

Unfortunately for that Bangkok-based registrant (if they’re based in Thailand, anyway), that further means they’re in that court’s mercy if they don’t show up there. Unless maybe the court will allow some kind of phone or video conference among the parties involved, that registrant risks defaulting the domain name to Kentucky by not physically responding to the dispute.

Sigh, that means we all have that risk, especially non-U.S. based registrants. What makes this more “challenging” is having to be aware of potential legal issues in those jurisdictions, which is practically difficult, if not impossible.

I previously blogged that Kentucky got an in rem court order, meaning the registrants of those domain names were not contacted at all. Kentucky said they’re trying to get the registrants to block off Kentucky-based users from their sites, but surely they could’ve gathered their names and contact details, and emailed them first before resorting to all this?

Except for the domain names transferred by eNom to Kentucky, I doubt the state will fully prosper on this one. On the other hand, this can “inspire” others to try this sort of thing for their respective legal issues, and it rather makes me shudder thinking about it already.

The other 2 registrars, Moniker and Network Solutions, have currently fought off these disputes, the latter being no stranger to civil suits. Given all the involved parties are in various jurisdictions, the 2 registrars don’t believe they’re obligated to do anything for the complainant.

IMHO that’s a plus factor for both of them. I guess it’s because they both can afford to resist, but this goes to show they’re obligated to their paying customers first before anyone else.

I’d say it’s still case to case whether they’ll “fight” for their customers first or they’ll do something to the domain name upon receipt of a court order. Also in my previous entry, I gave an idea how they’re likely to handle this to give you an idea, if when the complaining party is not within the registrar’s or your area.

So what can we take from this?

For one thing, despite the lack of “initial” due process by Kentucky on the domain names, keep your domain names’ contact details fully updated anyway. While the registrars aren’t necessarily going to notify you if something “legal” happens to the domain name, that’ll at least enable them or the complainant to get in touch with you.

For another, try to find out what you can from the registrar you’re looking to try out. Although you’ll likely find some complaints of delayed or lack of support if you search online or hear from friends, I’d still recommend Moniker for a variety of reasons despite that.

On the side, I found a non-U.S. registrar named Internet.bs. I’ll explore them and try to write a review ASAP, but go ahead and check them out if you’re still interested.

All in all, try to assess your risks and prepare for them as best as you can. And feel free to share whatever you know so others can learn from this.

Popularity: 48% [?]